By Matt Sharp and Sharon Supp

During the last few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made at least one thing clear: Colorado is consistently overreaching to apply its laws in unconstitutional ways.

Colorado treated a cake artist with hostility because of his religious beliefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The state threatened to coerce the speech of a graphic designer in 303 Creative v. Elenis. And last week, in an 8–1 vote in Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held a Colorado law violates basic First Amendment principles by censoring counselors from helping children regain comfort with their biological sex.

Given this history, it should come as no surprise another problematic bill is working its way through the Colorado legislature.

On the same day as its most recent Supreme Court loss, Colorado held a hearing to consider House Bill 26-1309. Like its prior efforts that have been condemned, this bill is another attempt to impose the state’s radical ideology on its citizens.

HB26-1309 does that by interfering with parents’ constitutional right to make important decisions regarding what’s best for their child. The bill passing out of committee clearly demonstrates Colorado hasn’t learned its lesson about what it means to respect the Constitution, despite repeated losses for violating fundamental rights.

For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has affirmed parents — not the government — have primary authority over their children’s critical life decisions. And for good reasons. Parents know and love their children best and are most uniquely positioned to be their child’s advocate and protector.

HB26-1309 rightfully prohibits threats to truly harm a child, but its definition of “coercive control” is so broad it sweeps in many normal parenting practices of caring parents.

For example, the bill defines “coercive control” to include a parent who monitors their child’s “activities, communications, or movements, including through technology.” This means a responsible parent who tracks their child’s social media use or monitors their physical location through popular apps like the Find My or Life360 could be considered abusive in custody proceedings.

A parent who uses the Screen Time feature to limit what apps their child accesses, which websites they visit, and how long they use their phone could be accused of exercising “coercive control” over their child by “regulating or controlling… the child’s… activities (and) communications.”

And grounding one’s child from spending time with certain friends the parent deems bad influences could be labeled “coercive” because the parent is “isolating (them) from friends.”

The bill’s definition of “health-related abuse” is also sweeping. And under HB26-1309’s provisions, the possibilities for redefining normal and responsible parental decisions as abuse are endless.

Consider, for example, many teenage girls struggle with self-esteem and feel self-conscious about certain facial features. Cosmetic surgery among teens is on the rise. But, under HB26-1309, a parent who refuses to take their teenage daughter for elective procedures to reshape her nose, ears, or breasts could be considered “interfering” with her access to “medical care, medicine (and) health-related services.”

And earlier this month, a new study from Finland indicated adolescents who received gender transition hormones and surgeries had “significantly more psychiatric morbidity” than their peers. Evidence like this is why many families are choosing “watchful waiting” for a child experiencing gender distress, rather than experimental medical interventions. Yet HB26-1309 could declare such prudent parental decisions as abuse.

Parents overseeing their children and protecting them from harm isn’t “coercive control.” And it isn’t abuse. It’s their responsibility.

HB26-1309 would effectively upend the historical legal framework governing custody determinations. Under relevant law and landmark Supreme Court cases like Parham v. J.R., parents are presumed fit and are presumed to act in their child’s best interests. This presumption has long prevented the government from overriding a parent’s authority absent a specific finding of unfitness.

This bill departs sharply from that principle. And it turns more than 100 years of Supreme Court precedent on its head. It risks sweeping many otherwise fit and loving parents into an unsubstantiated “abuser” category. And good parents could lose custody of their children when they need them the most.

We should also not overlook the simple fact the bill is unnecessary. Colorado has long had statutes on the books regarding domestic violence and abuse. Another one isn’t needed — and certainly not one that intrudes on loving parental guidance with regard to technology, relationships and health care decisions, and unjustly labels those parents as “coercive.”

Colorado shouldn’t be about driving a wedge between loving parents and their children. Parents and kids deserve better. And the Constitution demands it.

Matt Sharp is senior counsel and director for the Center for Public Policy with Alliance Defending Freedom(@ADFLegal). Sharon Supp is legal counsel for the ADF Center for Parental Rights.